Logically speaking, it should be treated like alcohol. Having said that, I only text when the traffic is very light on the road (usually freeway like conditions). The analog when it comes to drinking (for a person of my tolerance level) is like driving when you've only had one or two drinks (I've done it) and even then only when traffic conditions are light (In other words I'm hardly feeling the effects, if at all).

Several family members of Wilson spoke in court at today's sentencing in which they expressed anger at Jones, who has been in custody since the October crash. Besides pleading no contest Jan. 30 to causing the wreck that led to the death, Jones also admitted that she fled the scene rather than stop to provide aid for the man who was hit by another car after she knocked him off his motorcycle.

It takes me forever to send a message because I text 2-3 letters of a word at a time and rely heavily on the autocorrect. Is it illegal? Sure. Is it wrong? Not so sure. It's not different (for me personally) than changing the music that's playing in the car or adjusting the temp or whatever.

I'm not saying she shouldn't be punished and I'm not even saying it was too much or too little a punishment. I'm guessing the fleeing the scene didn't help her much.

...any other negligent activity, with punishment appropriate to any resulting actions.

Texting is illegal in CA, along with holding an electronic device. There is a demographic around here that holds a cellphone while using it as a speakerphone. Some believe that's legal, others do so to hide it quickly when The Man is around.

CA blew it big time making using a cellphone without hands-free gear no more consequential that a pricey parking ticket. Even then, most people didn't know that the ticket was pricey until they got one. Texting wasn't specifically addressed either. Not much of a deterrent.

Both activities should have been treated as moving violations with convictions adding points to their driving record.

It took many, many years for CA as well as many other states to recognize drunk driving as a irresponsible criminal act rather than merely an "unfortunate" by product of just having "a couple of beers".

It's good to see they're moving a little faster in the digital age (though that took years, too).

Interesting that she was responsible for the death of a motorcyclist. When I ride, I often see people with their phone in their right hand, that hand on their leg (presumably keeping the phone out of sight) and looking down at the phone to read, and sometimes time.

In the city, I split lanes at stop lights and occasionally as I roll up along side a car, I'll see the driver hide his/her cellphone.

I'm glad the girl was in custody from the time of the killing, and I think five years is a very small price to pay for negligence resulting in the death of another.

Had the two drivers been acting in concert to commit a felony, the girl could be facing a life sentence. As the motorcyclist was merely an innocent victim, see gets only five years.

By the by, I'd feel the same of the victim was a bicyclist or the driver of an SUV, or anything in between.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men
except by believing all possible evil
of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

...It's not different (for me personally) than changing the music that's playing in the car or adjusting the temp or whatever.

If you believe that then I've got a bridge to sell you.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

QuoteRAMd®d
Both activities should have been treated as moving violations with convictions adding points to their driving record.

I couldn't agree more. You can get points on your record if you're passed out drunk in the back seat of your car, sleeping it off instead of driving home, but no points for texting while driving? Crazy.

Quote(vikm)
It's not different (for me personally) than changing the music that's playing in the car or adjusting the temp or whatever.

People who drink and drive have similarly convinced themselves of their holy capabilities.

It's not wise to be doing for even the remote possibility of causing an accident.
It's not wise to be doing for the likelyhood of being blamed for having caused an accident.

All those other activities have been cited as distractions leading at least in part to having caused an accident, too. Texting can be proven. The other distractions, not so much.

Too many a-holes on the road to let one of them scr*w ya, and they will.

The Phorum Wall keeps us safe from illegal characters and words
The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of one's own ignorance. -Benjamin Franklin
BOYCOTT YOPLAIT [www.noyoplait.com]
[soundcloud.com]

My wife just got a $110 ticket for texting whilst stopped at a red light.
She didn't pull away in a timely fashion when the light turned green and a cop saw her and she was ticketed. Essentially, in terms of the danger involved, she could have been looking at a map, or doing any one of a 1000 other things that causes people to not pull away the instant a light turns green. Needless to say she will not be texting in a car again, unless she is pulled over with the engine turned off!

the reason why there are specific laws being passed against texting while driving is not because they're needed from a logic standpoint - distracted driving laws should cover that just fine. however, police and courts have a devilishly hard time trying to care about these things.

in many places you can be ridiculously negligent but as long as you don't have any alcohol in your system then its just an "accident." elderly person hit in a crosswalk? accident!

people want to drive without being responsible but at some point we have to justify needless lives being lost.

QuoteManlove
My wife just got a $110 ticket for texting whilst stopped at a red light.
She didn't pull away in a timely fashion when the light turned green and a cop saw her and she was ticketed. Essentially, in terms of the danger involved, she could have been looking at a map, or doing any one of a 1000 other things that causes people to not pull away the instant a light turns green. Needless to say she will not be texting in a car again, unless she is pulled over with the engine turned off!

ug... and tickets are more likely to be handed out when its easy rather than when someone is actually doing something reckless....

however, police and courts have a devilishly hard time trying to care about these things.

BS.

Police have a devilishly hard time trying to prove the driver was distracted, without some kind of measurable standard. If there is a major infraction, or a collision (with or without injury, it's pretty much prima facia.

It's similar with DUI. But with DUI (in CA) there must first be probable cause for a stop. If the driver is eventually found to to have a BAC of .08% or greater, they are presumed DUI. No further proof is needed. But everything up and to that point can (and often is) challenged.

Less than .08%, the People have to prove that the actions and condition of the driver warrant (npi) a conviction. Not that easy.

With texting being illegal, you don't have to prove that the driver was distracted, you just have to hope the jury believes your testimony that he was texting, and not the jerk:

"I wasn't texting. Maybe it was somebody who looked like me, in a car that looked like mine. But it wasn't me. I don't know what he's talkin."

turning a station, or upping the AC takes far less time than texting.

Agreed.

And it's my contention that it takes less higher (?!) brain activity to do those as opposed to texting.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men
except by believing all possible evil
of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

QuoteRAMd®d
...
turning a station, or upping the AC takes far less time than texting.

Agreed.

And it's my contention that it takes less higher (?!) brain activity to do those as opposed to texting.

Kids (and other people) can pocket text, i.e. by touch. They barely need to engage neurons to reply to a text. It's automatic. It's old people we need to worry about, whose fat jittery fingers fumble to find the keys!

In the city, I split lanes at stop lights and occasionally as I roll up along side a car, I'll see the driver hide his/her cellphone.

And I'm also hopelessly aware of what's going on inside people's cars. Most of the time I wish I wasn't able to see.

I walk my son to school & back every day, and we have to cross at a very busy intersection. So I'm teaching him how, even when you have the Walk signal, you have to make sure the approaching driver sees you and acknowledges you before you step off the curb. We watch drivers approaching the light as it's about to turn green, and it's downright frightening what we see a couple times a week. Maybe twice a week we miss the signal because somebody speeds right through, barely slowing to make the turn, often while chatting on the phone, or texting, or putting on makeup, or shaving, reading a newspaper. Or just not looking for pedestrians standing patiently at the corner trying to cross legally and safely.

In the city, I split lanes at stop lights and occasionally as I roll up along side a car, I'll see the driver hide his/her cellphone.

And I'm also hopelessly aware of what's going on inside people's cars. Most of the time I wish I wasn't able to see.

I walk my son to school & back every day, and we have to cross at a very busy intersection. So I'm teaching him how, even when you have the Walk signal, you have to make sure the approaching driver sees you and acknowledges you before you step off the curb. We watch drivers approaching the light as it's about to turn green, and it's downright frightening what we see a couple times a week. Maybe twice a week we miss the signal because somebody speeds right through, barely slowing to make the turn, often while chatting on the phone, or texting, or putting on makeup, or shaving, reading a newspaper. Or just not looking for pedestrians standing patiently at the corner trying to cross legally and safely.

Basic rule of the road- make eye contact with people, don't assume anything. Good for you dad. People really are stupid.

what proof is needed for a red light ticket? just the officer's word. i don't see why that wouldn't be sufficient for reckless driving.

Well, you've hit the nail on the head. It's the officer's word. That is not proof. A judge or a jury makes a decision based on that testimony, not on material evidence. Judgement usually goes for who has the most reasonable testimony and accurate testimony, unlike a red light camera case which is pretty much cut and dry.

Again, this is just about CA, but reckless driving almost always requires that three moving traffic violations are committed, and they all have to point to wanton disregard for the public's safety. Unless the suspect waves their right to a jury trial, you must convince the jury that what you saw merits the arrest and conviction. And not all jurors will agree with you. That's another reason good witness statements are important. But good witnesses aren't always around.

You can't force anybody to accept your word except perhaps when you testify as an expert witness. Then the defense may try to bring in one of their own. Again, it's a matter of who the jury believes.

So we have laws specifically about cellphones and texting, to eliminate uncertainty and hopefully prevent injury or worse.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men
except by believing all possible evil
of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

Reckless Driving in WA state is automatic for 20+ over the speed limit. My GF's niece just got nailed for 45 in a 20 school zone, and was hit with reckless. As soon as the judge heard school zone, she was screwed. He said she "might" be able to argue the 25 over down to 19, thus no reckless, but school zone screwed her. Lost her license until she hits 18.

I got an 86 in a 60, but the state trooper cut me some slack as the road was deserted, and wrote it for 19 over. He said the judge/magistrate knows this is code for already has been given a break and don't even try talking it down any lower.

Quoterz
For those of you who admit to texting while driving, please explain to me what's so goddam important that it can't wait? Seriously.

It's usually no more important than whatever you might say to someone sitting in a car with you. Like I said, I use voice to text to send them so I'm not typing. I personally think those people who have to look at you while talking when they're driving are more dangerous.